Re: [boost] More type_traits confusion

From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-23 07:15:52

>> Requires that T is constructable from the literals -1 and 0.
> Compile-time results if that requirement is not met (and thus signedness
> is not likely to have meaning for that type).

Yes, I have reverted to using something like that.

> Note that is_signed<char>::value is both well formed and well-defined,
> though its result will vary with implementations.

I think you should look again. For CW and GCC, is_signed<char>::value
reports false, even though chars are signed.
<

My experience is that that implementation is not portable, sometimes it
works, sometimes it doesn't :-(

- John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/